Re: [widgets] Widgets URI scheme... it's baaaack!

On Sep 8, 2009, at 00:21 , Mark Baker wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Robin Berjon<> wrote:
>> On May 23, 2009, at 19:21 , Mark Baker wrote:
>>> Right.  That's the same point Arve made.  I don't see a problem with
>>> it.  Sure, a widget will be able to discover an implementation  
>>> detail
>>> of its widget container - the base URI - but it's still up to the
>>> container to permit or deny access to other resources from that  
>>> widget
>>> when asked to dereference it, whether the widget discovered the URI
>>> via a mechanism such as the one you describe, or even if it simply
>>> guessed it.
>> Calling it an implementation detail doesn't make it one. Say I have  
>> a script
>> in which I need to identify resources that I'm currently using from  
>> within
>> the widget. Since I don't want to have to care how the designers  
>> linked them
>> in, I'll use their absolute URIs to compare them. If implementation A
>> returns "http://magic-widget-host.local/dahut.svg", and  
>> implementation B
>> "file:///special-widget-mount/dahut.svg", and C gives me "made-up:/ 
>> dahut.svg
>> we don't exactly have interoperability.
> I don't understand.  In what scenario would a script be comparing URIs
> produced by different implementations?

Know which section you're in to highlight a given button:

function getSection () {
   return location.href.replace(/^http:\/\/magic.local\/([^\/]+).*/,  

I won't say that it's necessarily the best-written code, but it's not  
daft enough to be shrugged off and it's not particularly contrived.  
It's easy to come up with a bunch of similar cases. If you get one  
implementation with more market-share than the others, then they'll  
have to copy its behaviour, and we'll then have to specify it.

Robin Berjon -

Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2009 11:42:01 UTC